DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLKATA, UNIT-II
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 7th floor, Kolkata – 700 087
Case No.CDF/Unit-II/C.C.No. 1191 of 2008 Date of Filing : 23-12-2008
Date of order : 29-12-2009
Complainants : Vs. O.P. /O.P.s
1) Subha Sinha w/o. Chandra Nath Sinha The Director,
2) Chandra Nath Sinha s/o. Bhupati Ch. Sinha Duncans Industries Ltd.
Both residing at 31, Netaji Subhas Road,
GC-202, Ground Floor, Sector-III P.S. Hare Street,
Salt Lake City, P.O. Purbachal, Kolkata – 700 106. Kolkata-700 001.
Before : HON’BLE PRESIDENT : SHRI S. BHATTACHARYYA
HON’BLE MEMBER : SHRI S.K.DEB
ORDER
This is a case u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, as amended upto date alleging deficiency in service from the end of the OP.
This case arises out of the complaint filed on 23-12-2008. The case of the complainants, in short, is that they invested Rs.5,000/- in two FDR no.203734 in cumulative scheme for 24 months of the OP Company. The FDR matured on 20-11-2003.
The original FDR was deposited to the OP/Company in the year 05-02-2004. As the OP Company defaulted to make payment, the complainants approached the respondent company for payment and several letters were also written, but to no effect. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged in this Forum against the OP on 23-12-2008. Prayer has been made for giving direction on the OP Company for making payment of the principal amount of Rs.5,000/- along with due interest on contractual rate and post maturity interest for withholding payment till recovered, cost and any other relief or reliefs as the complainants are entitled.
The OP contested the case denying deficiency of service. According to it the complaint is time barred and the matter is subjudice in the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta vide C.P. Case No.472 of 2003 and that it is a Sick Industrial Company within the meaning of Clause (o), Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (SICA) and a reference has been made to BIFR in terms of provision of Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (SICA), which was duly registered as Case No.70/2006. It has submitted that the Company was declared sick by BIFR on 21-02-2007 and the State Bank of India has been appointed as Operating Agency under SICA and directed to formulate a draft rehabilitation scheme. It has been submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP as repayment of the deposit to holder is under judicial process by BIFR. The matter was heard on 02-12-2009 in presence of both the parties.
The documents as produced were perused and considered along with the respective submissions. Affidavit on Evidence has been filed by the complainant. The complainants did not lodge any complaint in CLB. Considered the decision reported in I (2004) WBLR (CPNC) – 997.
Decision
The complainants invested Rs.5,000/- in fixed deposit in their name to the OP/Company. No portion of the principal amount was paid. The OP was a reputed company previously and so it is expected that the complainants will wait to see as to how the assurance is honoured, because no one wants to be involved in a litigation. Moreover, the fixed deposit was lying with the OP. The Hon’ble West Bengal State Commission has held in the case of Narayan Kr. Khaitan vs. Duncan Industries Ltd. that there will be continuous cause of action as long as the fixed deposit is not repaid in full along with interest to the depositor. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there was continuous cause of action. The complaint which was lodged on 23-12-2008 and it is not time barred.
The fixed deposit holders have invested their life savings in F.D. of the OP with the hope that the maturity amount will be helpful to support them at the time of their need. But their hope was shattered. OP failed to produce any order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta staying the proceeding of this Forum. The Hon’ble National Commission has laid down in a ruling reported in 2006-CTJ-1008 that the complaint before District Forum is maintainable in spite of the fact that a reference has been made to the BIFR under provision of SICA, 1985. Hence, the present complaint is maintainable in the eye of law.
Considering the documents and submissions of respective parties we are of opinion that the OP is liable in deficiency in service in not paying the principal amount as per its own assurance and interest at contractual rate.
Hence,
Ordered
1) The complaint is allowed against the OP on contest.
2) The OP shall pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) being the principal sum to the complainants along with due interest at the contractual rate upto the date of maturity against the FDR in question. The OP is further directed to pay post maturity interest @ 8% p.a. (at the rate of eight per cent per annum) from the date of maturity till realization.
3) The complainants are in urgent need of money to support themselves. In consideration of the above, the OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) to the complainants for causing harassment, mental agony and dragging them to this Forum.
This order aforesaid is directed to be complied with by the OP within 30(thirty) days on and from the date of communication of this order.
The CDF-II Case No.1191 of 2008 is disposed of on contest. There will be no order as to cost.
The complainants are directed to serve copy of this order upon the OP for compliance.
Supply copies to the parties free of cost as per rules.
Dictated & Corrected
by me
(MEMBER(M)
MEMBER(M) PRESIDENT
Tags: Duncans Industries